Apologise? Apologise for what exactly? Options

[On the edge]

Why on earth should Boris Johnson apologise for what he said about the burka?

It covers the wearers face and so is displaying an arrogant rudeness to anyone the wearer needs to communicate with. There is no religious requirement at all to cover the face and in some cases, it's actually symbolic of repression. On top of this, at this time of heightened national security, it is difficult to identify wearers and, just like the full face hoodie, ought to be restricted.

Some seeking to integrate into our community, with cultures and practices very different to those here in the UK might find this disturbing. However, integration is a two way street and arguably, this is one of the existing communities 'lines in the sand'.

Stifling debate as the PM clearly seeks to do is foolhardy and likely to create even more discontent and tension in both communities than there is already.

For me, this continual denial of real debate on crucial matters of difference is far more damaging to democracy than 'fake' news.

[newres]

Why on earth should Boris Johnson apologise for what he said about the burka?

It covers the wearers face and so is displaying an arrogant rudeness to anyone the wearer needs to communicate with. There is no religious requirement at all to cover the face and in some cases, it's actually symbolic of repression. On top of this, at this time of heightened national security, it is difficult to identify wearers and, just like the full face hoodie, ought to be restricted.

Some seeking to integrate into our community, with cultures and practices very different to those here in the UK might find this disturbing. However, integration is a two way street and arguably, this is one of the existing communities 'lines in the sand'.

Stifling debate as the PM clearly seeks to do is foolhardy and likely to create even more discontent and tension in both communities than there is already.

For me, this continual denial of real debate on crucial matters of difference is far more damaging to democracy than 'fake' news.

He was deliberately fanning the flames. He knew it would cause offence. If you can’t see it was designed to appeal to the knuckle draggers it can only mean you’re one of them.

[On the edge]

He was deliberately fanning the flames. He knew it would cause offence. If you can’t see it was designed to appeal to the knuckle draggers it can only mean you’re one of them.

You don't know that of course, and given that the remarks were in his usual style, it's doubtful that they were designed to cause offence, indeed quite the reverse.

What I'm seeing more and more, talking to groups of people throughout the country is the bitter resentment being built up against the governing establishment's failure to address such issues head on. I've met those involved in the administration of justice, education in schools and colleges, as well as commercial management who are also very offended by women refusing to 'show their face' and use it as an example of myriad other failures to properly manage integration.

It strikes me, that just like your response, ungrounded attempts to close any even sensible debate is as foolish as it is counter productive. It's sad that Johnson's attempt to lighten the issue is, as usual, misinterpreted. Can you imagine the fury if he'd used even plain language.

I'm sorry, but I'd argue that your final paragraph says more about you than me. Intelligent debate isn't about trading insults.

[newres]

You don't know that of course, and given that the remarks were in his usual style, it's doubtful that they were designed to cause offence, indeed quite the reverse.

What I'm seeing more and more, talking to groups of people throughout the country is the bitter resentment being built up against the governing establishment's failure to address such issues head on. I've met those involved in the administration of justice, education in schools and colleges, as well as commercial management who are also very offended by women refusing to 'show their face' and use it as an example of myriad other failures to properly manage integration.

It strikes me, that just like your response, ungrounded attempts to close any even sensible debate is as foolish as it is counter productive. It's sad that Johnson's attempt to lighten the issue is, as usual, misinterpreted. Can you imagine the fury if he'd used even plain language.

I'm sorry, but I'd argue that your final paragraph says more about you than me. Intelligent debate isn't about trading insults.

Oh the irony? Is saying people look like pillar boxes and bank robbers intelligent debate or trading insults?

[On the edge]

Oh the irony? Is saying people look like pillar boxes and bank robbers intelligent debate or trading insults?

It's what used to be called banter, or chaffing. Johnson was not insulting the wearers, just the style of dress. Just as I find Nurses wearing uniforms in public unacceptable because it's unhygienic.

[newres]

It's what used to be called banter, or chaffing. Johnson was not insulting the wearers, just the style of dress. Just as I find Nurses wearing uniforms in public unacceptable because it's unhygienic.

Ridiculous comment. His remarks have caused offence and he's been told to apololgise by both the leader & the chairman of the party. He's deliberately courting the right following his meeting with Bannon.

[On the edge]

Ridiculous comment. His remarks have caused offence and he's been told to apololgise by both the leader & the chairman of the party. He's deliberately courting the right following his meeting with Bannon.

What a sad state our politics are today then. You are implying that all MPs must be simply pawns and certainly must upset no one. Do you honestly think David Cameron should apologise for the offensive remarks he made about Nigel Fararge, or Mrs May for being offensive to Jeremy Corbyn? Perhaps you'd like us to follow the EU member states that are introducing prohibitions?

Demanding apologies and then even penance for bogus offences is a classic way to divert attention from the real issue. That then festers and gradually erupts with significant consequences. Why are you and your peers so afraid to engage in meaningful debate?


QUICK ADD
Have just spent time with a Muslim couple I've known for ages, yes, they are incensed by the Johnson issue ..... but mainly by people who aren't Muslim being offended in their behalf! As they said, how can you be offended by something that isn't true. Their religion does not require any women to dress, other modestly, that's essentially covering private parts; the face is not specified. In fact, their view is that the noise being made about this is very unhelpful indeed.

[newres]

What a sad state our politics are today then. You are implying that all MPs must be simply pawns and certainly must upset no one. Do you honestly think David Cameron should apologise for the offensive remarks he made about Nigel Fararge, or Mrs May for being offensive to Jeremy Corbyn? Perhaps you'd like us to follow the EU member states that are introducing prohibitions?

Demanding apologies and then even penance for bogus offences is a classic way to divert attention from the real issue. That then festers and gradually erupts with significant consequences. Why are you and your peers so afraid to engage in meaningful debate?


QUICK ADD
Have just spent time with a Muslim couple I've known for ages, yes, they are incensed by the Johnson issue ..... but mainly by people who aren't Muslim being offended in their behalf! As they said, how can you be offended by something that isn't true. Their religion does not require any women to dress, other modestly, that's essentially covering private parts; the face is not specified. In fact, their view is that the noise being made about this is very unhelpful indeed.

And FGM isn't a Muslim thing either but I'll bet the alt right won't be able to separate THAT from being a Muslim.

Shall we start making jokes about Hasidic Jews too? Can you see Boris doing that?

As I said, he's done that to be divisive. It was no accident. And for that reason alone he's an A R S E.

[On the edge]

And FGM isn't a Muslim thing either but I'll bet the alt right won't be able to separate THAT from being a Muslim.

Shall we start making jokes about Hasidic Jews too? Can you see Boris doing that?

As I said, he's done that to be divisive. It was no accident. And for that reason alone he's an A R S E.

The FGM laws are nothing to do with religion. They were put in place to protect women from dangerous mutilation which results in severe disability in later life.

Hasidic Jews, Nuns, Air cabin crews, etc.etc. all wear 'different' clothes, but don't cover their faces. That's the issue; again not a religious issue but one where for the proper functioning and safety of our society, an individual's face needs to be seen. However, the most virulent objections to any attempt to stop face covering come only from a religious group. Oddly, this group cannot justify their objection!

I agree Boris Johnson's intervention here was no accident. It was a main stream press column he wrote, which doubtless was carefully thought through. It also passed the Newspapers legal team. Yes, it's worth asking why he mentioned it right now, particularly where there is much more obvious low hanging political fruit. Rather than thinking up more insults; a good test would be to think objectively; why? I some how doubt if you'll like the answer.